Thread Tools

The Patriots in 2007 had the most prolific deep threat in NFL history in Randy Moss, who broke the all team record for regular season TD's.

That did not stop the Pats from struggling in multiple games in the playoffs that year, including the Superbowl.

Multiple posters here have noted that in the last 7 years the Patriot offense has lost big playoff games in which the offense has put up 17 or fewer points, especially by getting shut out in the 2nd half or in the 4th quarter of games.

The solution to this is not throwing money at a stud wide out. At best it would just be 2007 all over again, and will not address the original core problem(s) that result in offensive choke jobs.

The solution is looking at something a poster pointed out about Game Preparation Theory, in which playoff teams catch up to the K-Gun Patriots after more comprehensive playoff scouting.

The Patriots need to scout themselves especially on offense, in order to understand how to beat teams that make various 2nd half adjustments on them. It is NOT a talent issue, it is a play calling issue. In 2001 the Patriots had terrible receivers, but called the right play to secure the key 3rd down or make the key catch to advance a game-winning drive.

A stud WR will make a difference in THIS offense. in 2007 the running game wasn't a threat at all. Ridley gives us balance. Ben Watson and Kyle Brady aren't the threat in the middle like gronk, ballard, and hernandez are. Lloyd is far better than gaffney and stallworth. with a Deep threat in our current offense we will have the ability to take advantage of every inch of the field. the problem in 07 was the fact that we RELIED on the deep throw too much. brady got killed in the superbowl waiting for moss' deep routes to develop. having a stud WR will keep the safeties from creeping up and condensing the middle of the field like we've witnessed the last 3 years.

it made a huge difference in 07...just becasue they lost the SB by a miracle catch and with Moss as a stud that year didn't fix anything?

Click to expand...

They still only scored 17 points, though. I don't think anyone can say that the offense did its job that game. The defense fell just short (mainly because of the helmet catch) of making up for the lack of execution by the offense.

it made a huge difference in 07...just becasue they lost the SB by a miracle catch and with Moss as a stud that year didn't fix anything?

Click to expand...

Do you think Moss did all that much more than what Gronk did this year before he got injured? If Gronk wasn't injured, he was on pace for a 1,264 yard and 18 TD season even after a slow start. Moss had 1493 yard and 23 TD season. Not a huge difference.

I still think a healthy Gronk is just as effective as any stud WR not named Johnson, Fitzgerald, or a small handful of others to fixing the problems we saw on Sunday.

Click to expand...

A healthy Gronk fixes the problems we saw Sunday. A big bodied and athletic WR that runs all the routes and threatens every level of the field to go along with Gronk and Welker puts us over the top and makes this offense damn near unstoppable.

They still only scored 17 points, though. I don't think anyone can say that the offense did its job that game. The defense fell just short (mainly because of the helmet catch) of making up for the lack of execution by the offense.

Click to expand...

much of that was on the offensive line. patsfans.com has a problem with correlation and causation. Poor offensive line play will hinder any offense but that wasn't the problem on sunday. Lack of separation, inability to threaten from sideline to sideline as well poor adjustments and execution did. Its come pretty apparent that these "historically great" offenses have been coming up short in the post season and there hasn't been a consistent reason as to why.

They don't need a stud WR - but I'm telling you they definitely need better talent down the depth chart instead of guys like Branch, Stallworth, etc. Since they get snakebitten each year with injuries and when it comes down to these critical playoff games, they're left with no other WR's that can step up and get open so this team can continue winning. I know they did well during the regular season but when it comes to the tough teams in the playoffs (or the Super Bowl last year) they're forever one guy short.

However, all of this changes if Welker is gone. Then at that point I believe they need, at the very least, two very good receivers (not necessarily a "stud") to go along with Lloyd. I don't want to hear about Edelman being able to replace Welker because he's not as talented or as tough to sustain what Welker does week in and week out. That's probably one of the most underrated things about Wes is that he takes those hits and gets up and goes back to the huddle. Edelman's a good #3 or #4 receiver and he's definitely good enough to be productive in this offense, but in my opinion he's not going to be an upper tier receiver - as much as we'd all like to see him become one. He'll be far better than Branch and other veteran guys they continue to try and bring in, but they still need more help.

If Welker stays, I think Edelman should take Branch's spot on the depth chart, but they still need one more Lloyd-esque type of guy so they can at least have enough depth to be able to put up points if someone else goes down against better defenses. That would give them four good players that can at least be productive if one goes down or if Gronk or Hernandez get hurt. The latter seems pretty likely given their histories, so it would be nice to see them be able to sustain it when they start facing better competition. Because that killed them Sunday.

A healthy Gronk fixes the problems we saw Sunday. A big bodied and athletic WR that runs all the routes and threatens every level of the field to go along with Gronk and Welker puts us over the top and makes this offense damn near unstoppable.

Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to one, but unless they draft one I don't see how it is feasible capwise. In free agency, it is either Welker or a big bodied and athletic WR that runs all the routes and threatens at every level. Not both. And I would rather have the Pats spend any big free agent dollars on defense other than on Welker or his replacement.

Do you think Moss did all that much more than what Gronk did this year before he got injured? If Gronk wasn't injured, he was on pace for a 1,264 yard and 18 TD season even after a slow start. Moss had 1493 yard and 23 TD season. Not a huge difference.

Click to expand...

A good, respected deep threat draws defenses away from the line of scrimmage opening up the run game and the short passes. Gronk isn't going deep enough to draw defenses out of the short/middle part of the field.

Do you think Moss did all that much more than what Gronk did this year before he got injured? If Gronk wasn't injured, he was on pace for a 1,264 yard and 18 TD season even after a slow start. Moss had 1493 yard and 23 TD season. Not a huge difference.

Click to expand...

difference was moss was a burner on the outside...gronk can't burn someone on the outside but can out muscle almost anyone on the D

Two different types of players. What Moss did that year help the pats a tremendous amount. Ds were scared of them going deep backing off every other play

A stud WR in this offense MEANS EVERYTHING ! A guy TB can look to outside the hashes when opposing defenses collapse the inner part of the hashes like they did Sunday night and always did in prior Big Playoff games because we had nothing on the exterior. NO MORE, tired of it. We need a playmaker outside and another redzone option when Gronk as will happen, goes down again for something else.

-if a ref calls the hold, as Seymour was being tackled by an O-lineman (others were held too)
-if Tyree doesn't catch it
-if Asante does catch the INT
-if Randy does catch the bomb

There were other things that went exactly wrong too, but I can't think about it any more or else my lunch will reappear. At one point I think I had a list of 8 key things, and we had to go 0-for-8 to lose and we went 0-for-8.

They don't need a stud WR - but I'm telling you they definitely need better talent down the depth chart instead of guys like Branch, Stallworth, etc. Since they get snakebitten each year with injuries and when it comes down to these critical playoff games, they're left with no other WR's that can step up and get open so this team can continue winning. I know they did well during the regular season but when it comes to the tough teams in the playoffs (or the Super Bowl last year) they're forever one guy short.

However, all of this changes if Welker is gone. Then at that point I believe they need, at the very least, two very good receivers (not necessarily a "stud") to go along with Lloyd. I don't want to hear about Edelman being able to replace Welker because he's not as talented or as tough to sustain what Welker does week in and week out. That's probably one of the most underrated things about Wes is that he takes those hits and gets up and goes back to the huddle. Edelman's a good #3 or #4 receiver and he's definitely good enough to be productive in this offense, but in my opinion he's not going to be an upper tier receiver - as much as we'd all like to see him become one. He'll be far better than Branch and other veteran guys they continue to try and bring in, but they still need more help.

If Welker stays, I think Edelman should take Branch's spot on the depth chart, but they still need one more Lloyd-esque type of guy so they can at least have enough depth to be able to put up points if someone else goes down against better defenses. That would give them four good players that can at least be productive if one goes down or if Gronk or Hernandez get hurt. The latter seems pretty likely given their histories, so it would be nice to see them be able to sustain it when they start facing better competition. Because that killed them Sunday.

Click to expand...

I agree. This team needs to be more rounded in terms of depth rather than a stud receiving target to add to the current roster. A stud WR would be nice, but not necessary.

As Bedard pointed out in his column today, Branch was on the field for 47% of the plays and didn't draw any attention from the Ravens' defenders leaving them to double team Welker, Hernandez, and/or Lloyd.